Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Henderson, 115 P.3d 601.

1723 citing documents.

State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
at 144 ¶ 29 ( ¶ 27 (2005)).
State v. Perez Agueda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Perez Agueda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶7 “Reviewing courts consider alleged trial error under the harmless error standard when a defendant objects at trial and thereby preserves an issue for appeal.” ¶ 18 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
¶¶ 19-20 (2005); Escalante
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Schmitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Schmitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Daniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Daniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 18 (2005) (citations omitted).
State v. Villegas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Villegas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dominick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dominick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶20 Even assuming both of White’s pre-Miranda statements should have been suppressed,3 he does not establish reversible error because his post-Miranda statement was properly admitted, and the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that admission of the pre-Miranda statements “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mendivil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mendivil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruedas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruedas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Because Ruedas did not raise this issue at trial, he “must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20 (2005); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶12 Even if the superior court’s refusal to give a Willits instruction were erroneous, reversal would not be warranted because the State has established “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict[s].” ¶ 18 (2005).
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Failure to argue a claim usually 8 STATE v. TERAN Opinion of the Court constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.”); ¶ 18 (2005) (the State bears the burden to show an error was harmless).
State v. Larrazolo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Larrazolo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Miles bears the burden of establishing “both that fundamental error occurred and that the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 22 (2005).
State of Arizona v. James Murray Reaves, III 506 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. James Murray Reaves, III 506 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(error harmless if state proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”); see also Thompson, (refusing to overturn conviction and sentence where beyond reasonable doubt that flawed jury instruction did not affect verdict).
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022